U.S. Still Consorts With Dictators
Unprecedented attacks on American soil on Sept. 11, 2001, resulted in an immediate response by the United States - a massive effort involving military, intelligence and law enforcement coordination with countries as diverse as Pakistan, Syria and the Philippines.
The U.S. response also has a second, longer-term dimension. Recognizing that repressive, undemocratic regimes often breed terrorism by crushing peaceful and legitimate forms of political dissent, the Bush administration has featured democracy promotion as part of its core strategy to fight terror.
But the immediate response is often at odds with the second response. Since 9/11, the United States has been increasingly blamed for underwriting political repression overseas, as ordinary people living under repression conflate U.S. support in the fight against terror with their own governments' actions to stamp out legitimate domestic political opposition.
Our experience in the Cold War demonstrates that coalitions with unsavory governments and shadowy forces for the sake of a greater cause can boomerang and haunt us in the long run. In the 1980s, we supported the guerrillas in Afghanistan to roll back the Soviet threat; the Muslim rebels morphed into the biggest threat facing the United States today.
In other cases around the globe - Saudi Arabia is an example - the United States struck strategic relationships with what was viewed as the lesser evil to fight the greater evil of communism.
What lessons can we draw from this experience? Alliances with countries and forces operating with values and institutions inimical to our own are unstable and can lead to blowback. In the worst case scenarios, the support, weapons and training we provide may eventually be turned against us.
In today's context, how do we navigate the conundrum posed by our attempts to promote democracy and fight terrorism? How do we reconcile the immediate interest in crushing terrorists dead set to destroy stability, order and liberty without using illegitimate means of our own and partnering with dictators and human rights abusers?
The area of the world posing the biggest challenge is the belt of states running through Central Asia and the Middle East. They are the homeland and transit way for global terrorist movements and a region left untouched by recent global waves of democracy.
In Uzbekistan, where the authorities are dealing with the aftermath of March bomb attacks, apparently against Uzbek police forces, President Islam Karimov has held power since 1991 and brooks virtually no political dissent.
Decades of political repression in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. strategic partner, has radicalized key segments of its population and contributed to the rise of al-Qaida's global terror network. These two cases, while illustrative, are not exhaustive.
How can we guard against the anti-terrorism effort being used by autocratic regimes in a way that runs counter to our longer-term strategic interests of promoting democracy? The key point is that we can move the ball forward on both fronts - we can fight terror and promote democracy and, in some cases, both efforts can reinforce each other. We should:
Elevate human rights and democracy promotion into everyday diplomacy and policy decisions. The Bush administration's rhetoric and increased funding for democracy in the Middle East and Central Asia is significant, but not enough. We should avoid "bureaucratizing" democracy promotion. Rather, democracy and human rights promotion should be elevated in the list of priorities and viewed as a cross-cutting theme in all government agencies and activities. The annual human rights reports written by the State Department, for example, should be an integral part of the daily talking points of U.S. diplomatic representatives abroad. This effort requires integrated, active and regularized promotion by all actors across America's foreign policy apparatus.
Focus on developing processes and institutions rather than bolstering individual leaders. Over the long term, only development of sound institutions that enable citizens' meaningful civic and political voice can truly drain terrorist havens. Freedom House's annual survey of political rights and civil liberties, "Freedom in the World," indicates that the countries of origin of global terrorists typically receive the lowest scores in the areas of political rights and civil liberties.
Work more effectively with our democratic allies. The massive effort to promote political reform requires an integrated effort, working in collaboration with our democratic allies in Europe and around the globe. In addition to the Unites States, the European Union faces growing challenges within its own sphere of interest in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
There are no fast and simple solutions in this complex fight. But one thing is clear: The fight against global terrorism is a long-term enterprise that requires long-term approaches. Tolerating anti-democratic practices, as recent history has shown in country after country, is a bad bargain for the United States and the democratic world.
Brian Katulis is a research consultant at Freedom House and the National Democratic Institute. Christopher Walker is director of studies at Freedom House.